What about Cuba?

"If you believe in freedom, justice and equality you have no choice but to support Fidel Castro!" - Harry Belafonte.

Cuba has obviously been in the news recently, and it poses an interesting challenge to those of us who conduct research in the field of comparative political economy. Does the case of Cuba contradict the claim that socialism is an incoherent means to organise society?

I confess that I know little about Cuba, and have no direct experience. However over the last few weeks a number of interesting empirical issues have been raised, that seem to confirm my theoretical expectations. I find them plausible, but wonder about any potential counter claims.

Michael Statsny offers some personal views on the situation in Havana: "the misery and decay I encountered in Havana (Habana Vieja) exceeded my expectations by a wide margin". His account is disturbing, but he does add that "the people I talked with were actually quite happy with their situation
("We don't earn much, but as opposed to other countries education and
health care is for free!")"
This raises the issue of travelers visiting Havana and encountering people who say they're happy. It's important to be skeptical about these claims, since I think Michael's being naive. This doesn't rest on any "false consciousness", merely the genuine threats associated with free speech. Consider the following:

ONE evening, a Soviet joke relates, Stalin decided to see if he was as
beloved as his cronies insisted, so went to a Moscow cinema in
disguise. Sitting in the dark as the newsreels began, the tyrant was
moved to tears as the audience stood—apparently unbidden—and wildly
applauded his image on screen. His reverie was cut short when his
neighbour leaned down and hissed: “Comrade, we all hate him too. But
it's safest to stand and clap.” Charlemagne

So allow me to put together some of the crude information that's out there which directly confronts some of the more common popular sentiments about Cuba. (But don't let that stop you reading this article by Humberto Fontova)

Knobhead statement 1: But Cuba is relatively prosperous!

What's the appropriate benchmark here? As Brad DeLong shows, in 1950 Cuba was (i) rich compared to Latin America; (ii) quickly approaching Western living standards. To look at Cuba under communism (post 1959) we need to imagine what it would have been like had it continued on it's original path.

What is the evidence to say that Cuba has high living standards? Scholars learnt a tough lesson in 1989, which was that official statistics in countries without free information are dubious at best. As Ilya Somin says, "the UN and the others depend on information provided by the Cuban
government. You can't do independent data collection in a totalitarian
dictatorship. Thus, the UN numbers are derivative of Cuban official
statistics."

In other words, the data is somewhat meaningless but even if we believe it, Cuba has gone backwards

Knobhead statement 2: But Havana is cool!

We should expect Havana to be an inacurate indicator of national living standards - even more so than in free societies: "Like other communist
regimes, the Cuban government pours a disproportionate share of its
resources and public investment into the capital and areas likely to be
frequented by foreigners." (Ilya Somin)

Most of the impressive buildings in Havana are colonial and pre-date communism.

As Megan McArdle says, "Deep poverty is much more picturesque than moderate poverty." Progress is ripping down old and decaying buildings and replacing them with more functional, safer ones.

Conclusion: when can we learn the lessons of history? A country where people risk their lives to leave is no model for society. I'm a subjectivist - my values count for nothing. If someone risks their life to flee a country, that's the only indicator I need. If you value freedom, Cuba is a political and economic disaster.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"A country where people risk their lives to leave is no model for society."

Sure, but that applies to many countries in the world, notably including Mexico, which hundreds of people die trying to leave every year. If this is your comparator it's not a particularly useful one. It's probably also worth pointing out that if you're doing 'comparative political economy' it may be worth trying to take into account the effect of US sanctions. But I suppose that just makes me a knobhead.

Thanks for the comments, although I obviously fully agree that: (i) a subjectivist view of migration suggests that the USA is a more prosperous country than Mexico; (ii) restrictions on trade reduce prosperity.
You seem to be suggesting that Cuba wouldn't have suffered such a decline in relative economic performance if it were not for America's (somewhat arbitrary) trade policy, which favours the likes of Mexico etc. I find that pursuasive, but wouldn't increased trade with America merely obscure the structural problems by providing cheaper imports and benefiting from innovation spill-over? This comes back to my questions about Scandinavia, where I asked if the high social welfare + free trade economic model free rides on the positive externalities of low social welfare countries.
So I agree that the effect of sanctions are important, but don't feel that they are preventing a stable solution. If anything the comparison between Cuba and Scandinavia supports the arguments of economic liberals. What do you think?